I am very much amused that not a single one of you understood what jerrysfriend's point was. Â Having read many of his comments before, I have little doubt that when he does make an observation on style, he is being very serious about the matter. Â Recall that he made a comparison between articles in the Times on men running around with their shirttails hanging out and young boy ads and products for slutty underwear. Â These articles appeared in the leading newspaper of record in the United States. No one really Â believes that the articles describe the great tradition of men's style handed down to us over the last hundred years or more. Â One can hardly imagine George Frazier writing about these matters in Esquire magazine. Â Yet, our leading newspaper, one of the repositories of the tradition, seems to believe this kind of trash deserves our consideration. Â Does anyone really believe that? Â These are not matters that involve substantial people, and they really have nothing to do with style or a sense of style. I agree with jerrysfriend. Â The New York Times continues its slide into oblivion.

I think you and others here are reading far too deeply into this. I'll say it again: it is a fluff piece, placed in the style section, apparently describing a current trend in men's underwear and its subsequent promotion (is there any reason to doubt its veracity?) That it may not fall under the heading "All the News That's Fit to Print" is not really such a big deal is it? I mean, it's not like it's on the front page. It's in the Style section, folks, as in S-T-Y-L-E, not N-E-W-S. Not to shatter any illusions here, but whatever you & I choose to wear to work on Monday is not going to cause serious repercussions around the globe, or even down the street. And a silly piece on a current fashion trend does not signal the advent of the decline of western civilization or even of its most substantial daily gazette. Lighten up people.

I am very much amused that not a single one of you understood what jerrysfriend's point was. Â Having read many of his comments before, I have little doubt that when he does make an observation on style, he is being very serious about the matter. Â Recall that he made a comparison between articles in the Times on men running around with their shirttails hanging out and young boy ads and products for slutty underwear. Â These articles appeared in the leading newspaper of record in the United States. No one really Â believes that the articles describe the great tradition of men's style handed down to us over the last hundred years or more. Â One can hardly imagine George Frazier writing about these matters in Esquire magazine. Â Yet, our leading newspaper, one of the repositories of the tradition, seems to believe this kind of trash deserves our consideration. Â Does anyone really believe that? Â These are not matters that involve substantial people, and they really have nothing to do with style or a sense of style. I agree with jerrysfriend. Â The New York Times continues its slide into oblivion.

i am very much amused that you think he was speaking purely about 'style' or the quality of the NYT's writing. first point: he used the word 'disgusting' to describe the article. if the thrust of his post (HA. pun intended. ) was to suggest what you are saying - i.e. that the times was simply not writing to a certain standard with regard to 'style' reporting - then he could/should have used a more appropriate word, such as ...mmm, 'lamentable', or 'disappointing', or something like that. however, and this leads to the... second point: his subsequent replies betrayed his true intention, which was to publicly denigrate some brief (HA. another one. ) mention of homosexuality in the context of underwear marketing. his self-righteousness based on his (implied by himself) lack of rational thoughtfulness trumps any sort of considered opinion he may have about style. this was an opportunity he was taking to inject a narrow, specific morality into the forum, by pointing at something he disapproved of morally and implicitly asking us to join in the snickering. i don't care a bit about the article. i neither know nor care if the new york times goes down the tubes. what i do care about is his ignorant attitude serving as the basis for cultural criticism. i know some of jerrysfriend's other posts, and i agree many of them are most enlightening. that is what makes this revelation of attitude all the more perturbing. now i will have to think twice about where he's coming from, when i read any of his posts. this could have been a useful discussion about the relevance of market reports concerning men's underwear to the culture of men's style and fashion, but instead he made it sordid by fixating on a very minor aspect of the article. what would freud say, i wonder. /andrew <- neither latent nor overt (not that there's anything wrong with that Â )

I am very much amused that not a single one of you understood what jerrysfriend's point was.

Comoli, With all due respect, while I believe I understand your opinion, you certainly don't help your persuasiveness by pointing out how amused you are that none of us seem to have understood jerryfriend's point. You might, rather, have simply helped us to better understand the salient points, without prefacing your comments by taking some apparent delight in our "misdirection." We're all here to help each other, not highlight each other's apparent shortcomings. That said, if jerryfriend's points were as you say, then I'd have to agree with AJL and faustianbargain (you punster, you ). Even the most N-O-B-L-E of publications throughout history have had their run of salacious and controvertible issues. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't criticize a newspaper for what you consider are a departure from its usually high standards; that's your prerogative. I'm just saying that though ye be a king, it's still an ass that sits on the throne. Translation: we're all human.

Good Friends: I know the point he was making because I know him personally, and I rang him up and discussed it with him. That he is a man of unqualified high regard, look at his shoe listings in these pages: a man of rare taste.

No one really Â believes that the articles describe the great tradition of men's style handed down to us over the last hundred years or more. Â One can hardly imagine George Frazier writing about these matters in Esquire magazine. Â

I certainly agree that style is a different topic than sexual exploitation. One really should not be confused with the other.

Faustian Bargain slams Jerrysfriend for making a moral judgement, and then judges him right back: "what i do care about is his ignorant attitude serving as the basis for cultural criticism. i know some of jerrysfriend's other posts, and i agree many of them are most enlightening. that is what makes this revelation of attitude all the more perturbing. now i will have to think twice about where he's coming from, when i read any of his posts." Personally, I find the holier-than-thou attitude equally unappealing coming from both sides. Clearly, from now on I'll have to think twice about where BOTH of these posters are coming from when I read their posts. Or alternatively, we could just stick to the topic at hand -- men's style. I think (for this thread) the appropriate expression might be: "Let's not get our panties in a bunch." Montecristo#4 (RL Polo boxer-briefs)

Well said, montecristo#4. Controversial issues tend to make us all scramble to one side or another. I'm all for healthy points of view on either side, and hope that we can continue the thread with an objective look at the arguments put forth, without reference to individual inclinations.

agreed, quill. i'm normally cool-headed, so i may have gotten too worked up about this. i'm not keen to perpetuate any more polarization. in my defense, montecristo, i'll just say i was not 'slamming' j's-f for making a moral judgement per se. /andrew - unbunching his undies ------something more on-topic, for a change of pace: ps - does anyone here actually wear bikinis, or thongs for that matter? are they comfortable? i'm a plain ole briefs guy myself, although i'm planning to try some 'low-cut' style soon, as the waistband on my hanes tend to fold over occasionally (due to recent 'horizontal expansion&#39.

agreed, quill. i'm normally cool-headed, so i may have gotten too worked up about this. i'm not keen to perpetuate any more polarization. in my defense, montecristo, i'll just say i was not 'slamming' j's-f for making a moral judgement per se. /andrew - unbunching his undies ------something more on-topic, for a change of pace: ps - does anyone here actually wear bikinis, or thongs for that matter? are they comfortable? i'm a plain ole briefs guy myself, although i'm planning to try some 'low-cut' style soon, as the waistband on my hanes tend to fold over occasionally (due to recent 'horizontal expansion&#39.

Ahhh...Settled like gentlemen... Alternately there is always the duel you know. Used by gentlemen as well... JJF